White Nationalist Radio Host to Teach Institute on the Constitution Course

From the white nationalist forum Stormfront and on the program website:

ATTENTION: Memphis area listeners of The Political Cesspool Radio Program
If you have ever wanted to know more about Law, Liberty and Government, then consider joining a group of like minded individuals as they study the Constitution of the United States.
Political Cesspool co-host Eddie “The Bombardier” Miller will be teaching a 12 week course put together by the Institute on the Constitution. There will be a nominal fee for the main textbook, but otherwise no charge for the course, which will be open to the public and held on the campus of Macon Road Baptist Church in Arlington, Tennessee.

Stormfront describes itself as

We are a community of racial realists and idealists. We are White Nationalists who support true diversity and a homeland for all peoples. Thousands of organizations promote the interests, values and heritage of non-White minorities. We promote ours. We are the voice of the new, embattled White minority!

The Political Cesspool radio program describes itself as

The Political Cesspool Radio Program stands for the The Dispossessed Majority. We represent a philosophy that is pro-White and are against political centralization.

Two of the goals of those involved in the radio program are

to revive the White birthrate above replacement level fertility and beyond to grow the percentage of Whites in the world relative to other races.
Secession is a right of all people and individuals. It was successful in 1776 and this show honors those who tried to make it successful from 1861 – 1865.

Institute on the Constitution founder and director Michael Peroutka has appeared on the Political Cesspool.
I wonder if the Macon Road Baptist Church folks know what they are hosting.

Institute on the Constitution: The American View or the Confederate View?

The website for the Institute on the Constitution is called The American View. As a result of taking his Constitution course, director Michael Peroutka claims that

students will become familiar with “The American View of Law and Government”:

  • There is a God, the God of the Bible

  • Our rights come from Him

  • The purpose of civil government is to secure our God-given rights

Ed Sebesta at Anti-Neo-Confederate reminds us that the National Religious Broadcasters are offering IOTC’s Constitution course via their website and network (Liberty University also).  He also asserts that the IOTC takes more of a Confederate view than an American one.
Some Christians may resonate with the IOTC declaration that the American view is that the founders deliberately sought to create a Biblical foundation for law and government. However, one must ignore many events and statements during the early days of the nation to hold that belief. For instance, theologically orthodox president of Yale, Timothy Dwight, certainly did not describe the Constitution in Peroutka’s terms when he spoke to Yale students in 1812.

Notwithstanding the prevalence of Religion, which I have described, the irreligion, and the wickedness, of our land are such, as to furnish a most painful and melancholy prospect to a serious mind. We formed our Constitution without any acknowledgment of God ; without any recognition of his mercies to us, as a people, of his government, or even of his existence. The Convention, by which it was formed, never asked, even once, his direction, or his blessing upon their labours. Thus we commenced our national existence under the present system, without God. I wish I could say, that a disposition to render him the reverence, due to his great Name, and the gratitude, demanded by his innumerable mercies, had been more public, visible, uniform, and fervent.

In his treatment of the founders’ religious beliefs during the IOTC course, Peroutka cherry picks quotes from founders to make them all sound orthodox. Like David Barton, Peroutka portrays the founders as orthodox in order to tie the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to “the God of the Bible.” Most founders were theistic, but that doesn’t mean they all believed in “the God of the Bible” in the evangelical sense or that they deliberately set out to create a Biblical government. What is remarkable is how infrequently religion is mentioned in the founding documents.
Historical problems aside, Peroutka espouses positions that are more acceptable at the League of the South than in a course on “the American view.” For instance, his position on nullification and interposition is much more in line with the Confederate view than the American view. Various defenders of slavery (e.g., John C. Calhoun) and segregation (e.g., Ross Barnett) tried the nullification argument and eventually failed.
Peroutka’s organization, the League of the South (he is a board member and has pledged the resources of the constitution course to the League), is the embodiment of the Confederate view. They can’t stand Abraham Lincoln and disparage Martin Luther King, Jr. They (from the LoS blog) disdain the United States, calling it the “USSA” and the “Evil Empire.” (see also “doomed evil empire” and an “organized criminal enterprise“), and don’t consider themselves American. They promote Southern secession in order to form an “Anglo-celtic” (i.e., white) Christian nation with a constitution that looks like the Constitution of 1788 (sans slavery amendments) and the Confederate Constitution of 1861. They don’t fly the American flag at their conferences, preferring instead the Confederate battle flag. At their upcoming anti-immigration reform rally in Uvalda, GA, the League plans to fly “The Georgia Secession Flag (left) and the Southern Nationalist Activism Flag (right) will be flown by participants at the upcoming demonstration.”
LoSprotestflags
In June of this year, Peroutka told those in attendance at the League of the South conference that the League taught him most of what he knows. At 4:00 minutes into the video, Peroutka told the crowd:

Thank you for your kindness. I always have the difficulty when it comes to the League of the South since I actually learned most of what I know from y’all. There’s always the difficulty of what I’m going to tell you that you don’t already know.

Does it seem likely that the League of the South would teach Peroutka an American view? Does it seem likely that the League would endorse something called the American View if the leaders did not think it was friendly to the Confederate view? At one League conference, Peroutka urged the League to use his course as compatible with League goals, and at least one state branch has done so:

Former Presidential candidate Michael Peroutka co-founded the Institute on the Constitution (IOTC), the program that will run at the Middle Georgia Chapter’s Hedge School in April (see right). According to Chapter Chairman Ben Davis, it is an excellent resource which lends itself very easily to the League message. Davis encourages fellow chapter leaders to host IOTC in their localities. For more information, go to www.iotconline.com.

In my opinion, when the League says a resource “lends itself very easily to the League message,” I suspect they mean it. Which view does it appear they endorse?
 

Does the Church Have a League of the South Problem?

When the Washington Free Beacon revealed that an important member of Sen. Rand Paul’s staff, Jack Hunter (aka “The Southern Avenger”), had at one time been a member of the League of the South, pressure came quickly for Paul and Hunter to distance themselves from the League’s neo-Confederate views.  Eventually, Hunter resigned from Paul’s staff.

Pundits on the left and right questioned Paul’s judgment and views on race. Paul has been on the defensive and if he chooses to run for president, he likely will be asked again about his reasons for hiring a neo-Confederate sympathizer.

With the emergence of the Institute on the Constitution as an accepted organization within the Christian right, I submit the evangelical church now has a League of the South problem. As I have pointed out on the blog, the IOTC’s director and lead teachers are leaders in the League of the South. Founder and director Michael Peroutka is a member of the board of directors for the League and senior teacher David Whitney is the chaplain of the League’s MD branch. Peroutka has stated to a League of the South audience that his reasons for teaching the Constitution are not to reform the current government but to prepare for Southern secession or some form of governmental collapse. He has also pledged the resources of the IOTC to the achievement of the League’s objectives.

As I noted recently, the National Religious Broadcasting network is now showing the 12-part Constitution course with Peroutka and Whitney teaching. This course is also being shown simultaneously on Liberty University’s television network. The far right Sons of Liberty of Bradlee Dean is also offering the IOTC course. Peroutka is a regular on Steve Deace’s talk show. If not for parents’ protests, the Springboro School Board would have evaluated the course as a potential offering in their school district. The teacher of the course then moved it into a local church. Many mainstream churches, especially in Ohio, have hosted the course over the past several years.

Before the series started on the NRB network, I alerted the NRB about the connection between the League and IOTC. And yet, the series continues.

Is there a problem here? I may be wrong, I believe there is a brewing problem. Many in the nation are having important conversations about race and racism. Historically, the church has been divided over issues of race. The League fancies itself a Christian oriented organization with an objective to promote Southern secession to form a white, Christian nation. Will the evangelical church let these objectives enter the mainstream?

To my mind, the emergence of the IOTC raises significant questions. Is the situation I am describing here helping or hurting racial reconciliation? Can a League of the South board member simultaneously be a leader in the evangelical world? Does the stated aims of the course and organization matter if the content of the course serves Christian right political objectives?* Association with the League in the political world is enough to cause significant alarm; should the same be true in the church? Are there important differences between the political and religious worlds that make association with the League a problem in one place but not the other?
Does the conservative Christian church have a League of the South problem?

*A related issue relates to the accuracy of the course information. There are many problems with the IOTC programs I have seen (e.g., see this post) but this is also true of Christian nationalist programs without questionable ties to neo-Confederate organizations.
IOTCNRBWebsitesm

Springboro Confederate Flag Waving, League of the South Defender Says He Was Misunderstood

This is why it is good to shine light in dark places.
Defending the indefensible often leads to backpeddling.
In actuality, Sonny Thomas, the fellow who showed up at the Springboro School Board meeting and defended the Constitution course written by a League of the South board member didn’t back off much. He now says he was trying make a point about symbolism. I guess in a way he did what he set out to do. However, the symbolism which most people associate with the Confederate flag is repulsive.  He acknowledged that most people viewed it as racist, a sentiment which was confirmed in the Cincinnati.com article by Cincinnati area minister, Damon Lynch.
Not sure how Sonny’s reframing of the situation will sit with his ideological peers. On at least one white nationalist blog, he was getting cheers for his efforts. Occidental Dissent posted a link to the Daily Caller article on the subject with the headline, “Go, Sonny, Go.” According to the blogger, Sonny was in attendance at the unabashedly white nationalist Council for Conservative Citizens 2013 conference.
Kelly Kohls, president of the school board, told me in an email that she was surprised by Thomas’ remarks. She told me that board policy allows prearranged speakers to talk about whatever they want to talk about for three minutes. She said she felt between “a rock and a hard place” because she disagreed with his message but also worried about a free speech lawsuit if she shut him down.
Looking into Thomas’ background, it is hard to see how his remarks were surprising. This is not his first national media rodeo. In 2010, he was in the news for making disparaging remarks regarding Hispanics via twitter.  There were ripples throughout the tea party world; for instance, James Traficant and others pulled out of a Springboro tea party event due to Thomas’ involvement.